← All Phrases

“section 80IB deduction”

DeductionsSection 80IBSection 80IB19 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 80IB deduction is Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), cited in 571 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 80IB deduction

Liberty India v. CIT
317 ITR 218 · 2009 · Supreme Court
571
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

CIT v. Sterling Foods
237 ITR 579 · 1999 · Supreme Court
311
citing judgments

Income eligible for profit-linked deductions under sections like 80-IC or 10B must have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity or be derived from the industrial undertaking itself, and not merely attributable to it or arising from a post-manufacturing event.

Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT
196 ITR 188 · 1992 · Supreme Court
289
citing judgments

Provisions in taxing statutes that grant incentives, concessions, or exemptions for promoting economic growth and industrialization must be interpreted liberally and purposively. Any restrictions placed on such provisions should also be construed reasonably to advance their objective, not frustrate it.

CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd.
383 ITR 217 · 2016 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

Subsidies and excise duty refunds that are accounted for in the Profit and Loss account are revenue in nature, form part of business income, and are eligible for deductions under Section 80IB/80IC. Such receipts cannot be reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

CIT v. Paul Brothers
216 ITR 548 · 1995 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Once a claim for deduction under section 80-IA or 80-IB is allowed in the initial assessment year and is not subsequently withdrawn, the revenue is estopped from denying the deduction for subsequent years on the same grounds.

CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co.
204 ITR 412 · 1993 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The word 'production' has a wider connotation than 'manufacture'; every manufacture is production, but not every production amounts to manufacture. 'Production' includes bringing into existence new goods, by-products, or inter-products through a process, which may or may not be manufacture.

CIT v. Lakshmi Machine Works
290 ITR 667 · 2007 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

Excise duty collected by the assessee as an agent on behalf of the government is not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

Judgments citing section 80IB deduction

ACIT Circle vs. Sheena Exports

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 970/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2003-2004

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

Sheena Exports herein; as the case may be, raise an identical issue of their respective entitlement(s) to claim section 80HHC & Section 80IB deductions as “supportive” manufacturer(s). We are further informed that this is the second round of proceedings between the parties before the tribunal in furtherance

ACIT, Circle vs. Sheena Industries

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 1229/DEL/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

Sheena Exports herein; as the case may be, raise an identical issue of their respective entitlement(s) to claim section 80HHC & Section 80IB deductions as “supportive” manufacturer(s). We are further informed that this is the second round of proceedings between the parties before the tribunal in furtherance

ACIT, Circle, Karnal vs. Sheena Industries, Panipat

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA 1228/DEL/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2002-2003

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 1229/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 1999-00 Ita No. 1228/Del/2006 : Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Acit, Vs Sheena Industries, Circle, Ujha Road, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80HSection 80I

Sheena Exports herein; as the case may be, raise an identical issue of their respective entitlement(s) to claim section 80HHC & Section 80IB deductions as “supportive” manufacturer(s). We are further informed that this is the second round of proceedings between the parties before the tribunal in furtherance

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

meaning must be given to the expression 'worker', it would not proper to give a restricted meaning to that expression and hold that Section 80IB deduction is allowable only if the workers directly employed by the assessee exceed ten. To put it simply, the condition imposed under Section 80IB

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

meaning must be given to the expression 'worker', it would not proper to give a restricted meaning to that expression and hold that Section 80IB deduction is allowable only if the workers directly employed by the assessee exceed ten. To put it simply, the condition imposed under Section 80IB

Da Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 115JSection 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80I

entitled for the impugned relief in the light of CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 376 ITR 456 (SC), dealing with section 80IB deduction claims. We make it clear that section 80IB(13) also imports section 80IA(7) “so far as may be”. We accordingly conclude that both

DCIT, CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Hindalco Industries Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, there is no substance raised by the department and the same is dismissed

ITA 619/KOL/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2003-04
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub- 10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Procter & Gamgle Hygiene& Healthcare, Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6591/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub-10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6549/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

existing building. The claim of the Assessee is that the Vaporub-10 gm Unit fulfilled all the other eligibility conditions from claiming Section 80IB deduction. Though Old plant and machinery was used, the percentage of the old plant & machinery used was less than the threshold limit

Prime Health Care Products, Daman vs. ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 506/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prime Health Care Products, Vs. The Dcit, Vapi Circle, Plot No.198 To 207, Dabhel Indl. Co. Vapi. Society Ltd., Village. Dabhel, Daman, Daman-396210. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp6232C

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

regular appeal only. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal for allowing rectification application on the issue of section 80IB deduction for scrap sale income is hereby dismissed. The case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable for the issue of rectification. Hence, assessee

Cipla Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 2732/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ground no.1, the Revenue has challenged the ld. CIT(A)’s order in not adopting the basis taken by the A.O. for computing section 80IB deduction of Rs.149,24,40,574/- as against Rs.427,10,08,047/-, claimed by the assessee as ‘admissible to eligible unit’, wherein ... case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 5529/Mum/2012, vide order dated 10.09.2014, has accepted the method adopted by the assessee for computing section 80IB deduction for eligible units. On this basis, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the A.O. and allowed the grounds of appeal

DCIT CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Cipla Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed

ITA 2639/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B (Revenue) : (Assessee) M/S. Cipla Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1(2) 289, Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 1450 B : (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Hemen ChandariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ground no.1, the Revenue has challenged the ld. CIT(A)’s order in not adopting the basis taken by the A.O. for computing section 80IB deduction of Rs.149,24,40,574/- as against Rs.427,10,08,047/-, claimed by the assessee as ‘admissible to eligible unit’, wherein ... case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 5529/Mum/2012, vide order dated 10.09.2014, has accepted the method adopted by the assessee for computing section 80IB deduction for eligible units. On this basis, the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the A.O. and allowed the grounds of appeal

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 41Section 80

case of M/s Hind Lever chemicals Ltd. (AY 2002-03) is brought out to show how the assessee is not eligible for section 80IB deduction in respect of fertilizer concession/subsidy, the Ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the AO disallowing the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80IB ... that in the case of M/s Hind Lever chemicals Ltd. (AY 2002-03) as to how the assessee was not eligible for section 80IB deduction in respect of fertilizer concession/subsidy, the Ld. DR submits that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in respect of the above ground of appeal